A recent study finds many companies reluctant
to share information about high-potential selection and leadership development programs
with employees. HR leaders should jump at the chance to help set criteria for
these programs and communicate development opportunities to the workforce, experts
say.

By Mark McGraw

Friday, November 30, 2012

While employers
have taken significant steps toward making most HR practices and processes transparent,
a recent survey suggests many companies are still slow to share criteria for high-potential
selection and leadership development programs with employees.

The
study, conducted by AMA Enterprise, the New York-based division of the American
Management Association, found just 18 percent of 289 executives, employees and
senior-level managers describing their organizations as being "very"
transparent with respect to high-potential selection criteria, with only 15 percent
saying the same regarding admission to their companies' leadership programs.

These
figures contrasted with the survey's other findings, which saw respondents
saying their organizations were "very" transparent about HR processes
such as employee survey findings (41 percent), corporate strategy (35 percent)
and performance reviews (33 percent).

So, why
the shroud of secrecy around leadership development programs and high-potential
selection standards?

Experts
identify two potential factors at work.

"One
is a lack of courage; a fear of the fallout [from making selection criteria and
development opportunities known throughout the organization]," says Kim
Ruyles, president of Coral Gables, Fla.-based talent management and
organization-development firm Inventive Talent Consulting. "I've actually
had a client tell me his company maintained a 'public' list of high-potentials,
and another list with the real high-potentials."

Some
organizations indeed worry that sharing too much information about talent-development
opportunities may foster a perception among employees that the selection process
for such programs is "political and capricious," according to Sandi
Edwards, senior vice president with AMA Enterprise. She cites additional AMA
research which finds as many as 25 percent of employees saying they consider
talent-development programs to be less than equitable, a view that Edwards says
could undercut the programs' success.

"When
employees don't understand how to play the game, when they don't know how to be
selected to be an 'all-star,' they make their own rules. They make up their own
reasons why one employee is in the program and another is not. If part of your
employee population isn't sure how these programs are designed or how people
are selected, that's going to have a negative impact."

Another
concern for companies is the difficulty in managing the expectations of those
selected for leadership development programs, she adds.

"I
think there's a fear that employees will feel being told they are high-value
contributors that are going to get these opportunities automatically means they
are going to get promoted," says Edwards. "But you can't guarantee anything.
So there's a fear that, if promotions aren't available, [high-potentials] will
be demotivated."

Promotions,
however, aren't the only way to grow and develop employees, she says; noting
the need to outline additional advancement paths available to those selected
for leadership programs as well as high-value employees not interested in
leadership programs.

"How
do you encourage people -- including the high-value contributors not involved
in high-potential programs -- to be as vested as possible? If everyone feels
they have a path of some sort, and that path contributes to the future and
growth of the company, then you have balance in your organization, and
employees are engaged."

HR
should seize the chance to provide career support and help identify these
career tracks for their best and brightest, continues Edwards.

HR
leaders "should be jumping up and down for joy about the chance to work
with business units to identify the talented people the organization needs not
just now, but in the future," she says. "HR has a significant role in
setting the criteria for [leadership development] programs and communicating them
to employees, as well as coming up with exciting and interesting coaching and
mentoring opportunities."

The
organizations that excel at leadership development are "masters at
differentiating talent," adds Ruyles. That process requires collaboration
between HR leaders and line managers, he says.

"Talent
reviews and conversations about performance and immediate development are the
primary job of [a high-potential employee's] immediate boss. Facilitating
talent reviews, as well as providing the support, the infrastructure, laying
out the long-term career path -- that's where HR comes in.

"Every
organization has a need for somewhere between 70 percent and 90 percent of its
workforce to be solid core employees. Some may be in lower-level management,
for instance. You also have leadership roles that are generalists. And you also
have expert specialists that are really responsible for driving some sort of
expertise or knowledge -- a chief research scientist, for example," he
says.

Newsletter Sign-Up:

"The
tracks for top-talent generalists and specialists are very unique. Those
talents are developed differently. Let employees know how these careers are
developed if they want to ascend to senior leadership and strategic positions."

HR
should also be charged with determining how and why these distinctions are
made, and explaining as much to employees, says Edwards.

"Communication
within the organization needs to be very clear. Make the rationale clear to
everyone. If we have leadership [programs] for certain people, there needs to
be clarity on what other workers are going to receive in the way of development
opportunities.

"For
those that aspire to management positions, for example, they need to know what
the criteria are – you may need a certain performance appraisal score, for
instance. Or there needs to be visible signs of contributions to the
organization. There are all kinds of criteria, but most companies will use some
form of performance appraisal and management observation. Recommendations of
senior managers are usually going to carry a lot of weight."

Ultimately,
HR professionals should "help architect a process for defining what a
high-potential employee knows and does," and make the criteria -- whatever
they may be -- "explicit, transparent and useful" for employees and
managers alike, says Dave Ulrich, professor at the Ross School of Business at
the University of Michigan and a partner at the RBL Group, a Provo, Utah-based
consulting firm.

"To
get high performance, companies have to first define what they are trying to
accomplish -- strategy, mission, goals or objectives -- then they have to
define specific measures that turn this strategy into trackable standards,"
says Ulrich.

"There
also has to be financial and/or non-financial consequences tied to meeting
those standards. Finally, there has to be open feedback with employees about how
they're doing. If these four steps – strategy, metrics, consequences, feedback
-- are not transparent and followed, employees will not know what is expected
of them."